Say Anything Blog

McCain?  John McCain? 

John McCain of the Keating 7 says there are greedy people on Wall Street that need punish?

Hey kettle, the pot called you black.

McCain: “Greedy People” On Wall Street Should Be “Punished” For Subprime Mortgages

So much for personal responsibility, supposedly a hallmark value of the Republican party.

By Rob on January 30, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Yep. I agree with you. Those that made unsafe loans available should be held personaly responsible.

e,

Please explain exactly what you mean by the term “unsafe loan.”  Which loans do you personally consider to be “unsafe”... and why?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat,

I had a “unsafe loan” nearly run me off the road once.  No..wait… that was a ‘unsafe loon’.

My mistake.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

“Unsafe Loon” huh?  No doubt a liberal too!

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Undisputed liberal.

Even after he sobered up, he was still incoherent.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

Yep. I agree with you. Those that made unsafe loans available should be held personaly responsible.

No, he said “punished”.  But in you and McCain’s mind, what punished means is that the lenders should not receive any government subsidies directed at their bad decisions, unlike the folks that made bad decisions to take these loans out.  Government should write a blank check to these poor saps that got screwed by evil Wall Street types.  But the lenders need to be “punished”.

As if stock prices plummetting for Country Wide and other lenders saddled with bad debt as well as many thousands of layoffs of mortgage officers and support folks as well as investors losing their asses as well as folks like me that have 401ks that are losing value because of it…  We all need punished.  But some dumb fuck that doesn’t pay his bills on time and has a 580 credit score and therefore gets a subprime ARM so he can buy a house he cannot afford—Johnny Mac wants the American people to jump up and help fix this crisis.

But Fuck me and the rest of us that have watched the Market Cap of the companies in our stock portfolio plummet.  We need punished.  Who exactly is he talking about punishing?  The dishonest loan officer that already lost his job at the subprime company?  The CEO’s of these companies that have already accepted nice severance packages?  Who does he want to punish?  The shareholders of Countrywide that simply held stock as part of a mutual fund in their 401k?  Yeah, he means he wants to punish those of us that invest our money into stocks and mortgage backed securities, as if the REITS and drop in value of homes as well as the drop in value of the stock market isn’t punishment enough.

I had a “unsafe loan” nearly run me off the road once.  No..wait… that was a ‘unsafe loon’.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Laydown made another funny. Laydown + doobie = HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Mittens doing what all good leftists do by adding the full extent of their intellectual power to the dialog.

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

How about we punish those in the Senate that voted to force loan companies to make loans to nearly anybody.

We should hold them personally responsible for the losses they caused.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

THE FOLLOWING OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT IS NOT A TYPO:

If John McCain wins the Republican Nomination, VOTE FOR HILLARY in the General Election.

Huh?

Just look at it this way, “Better a common enemy than a traitor in our midst”.

When was the Republican’s FINEST HOUR?  When were we united under a truly CONSERVATIVE BANNER?

Correct, when Bill Clinton was POTUS.  That’s when we had the “Contract with America”.  Why?  Because Bill Clinton provided us with a COMMON ENEMY.  Instead of turning inward and sniping amongst ourselves, we focused on the one enemy who could destroy us all.

Think of the movie, “Independence Day” when all the warring factions of earth worked TOGETHER to defeat the invading alien horde.

Why has the Conservative Movement of the Republican Party collapsed under Bush?  Because our Congress sought to “be on the same team” as a moderate, populist, non-conservative POTUS.  It destroyed us from within.

Better to battle the enemy at our gates than let a TROJAN HORSE into our midst.  John McCain is the TROJAN HORSE of the DNC and his belly is filled with moderate and liberal foot-soldiers.

So CONSERVATIVE MUST CHOOSE.  Vote for Huckabee (who really has no chance and is just running interference for McCain) or coalesce around Romney and say NO to the Trojan Horse.

Whistler,
They do conveniently forget that government regulators insist that people with piss-poor credit be given loans, or else lending institutions be accused of red-lining and/or racism (really considered one and the same). Then said financial institution(s) gets fined and ordered to put X amount of banks, etc., in “disadvantaged” neighborghoods, and loosen the purse strings for the “disadvantaged.”

They said okay, we’ll make the loans, but we’ll make worth our while. Then certain institutions (Bear Stearns) came in to mop up some of the gravy and encouraged it to go from 10mph to 100mph. And, don’t forget, Johnny Edwards was also there to profit from it. They all should get what they deserve: people with no business getting a loan got one - shut up and pay for it or refinance; banks made shitty loans (many at the urging of Congress) to unworthy applicants - suck it up and take your losses when they come (and I’m sure they made those applicants get PMI, that’ll help soften their fall).

It’s all about capitalizing the good, and socializing the bad.

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Why would we want a President who is an economic ignoramus?  John McCain has illustrated his profound ignorance of basic economics many times.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Well he was smart enough to marry a rich heiress.

No Free Lunch

I wouldn’t mind an economic ignoramus so much if they knew enough to keep their ignorance to themselves and leave us alone.

The problem with McCain his supersized ego wouldn’t let him NOT meddle in the economy.  He’d eff it up more than Carter.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Well he was smart enough to marry a rich heiress.

Kevin,

So???  John Kerry did it twice, and he’s dumber than a box of rocks.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Well he was smart enough to marry a rich heiress.

Beer distributer right?  I wonder how much effort he puts into regulating them.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

John Kerry did it twice, and he’s dumber than a box of rocks.

Quit insulting rocks.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Its not the rocks… its that cardboard box.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Why would we want a President who is an economic ignoramus?

R108,

Good question!  We’ve already had two of those in recent memory… Jimmy Carter whose legacy included double digit inflation, 20+% interest rates, and shortages, and this Bozo.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Another poster hinted at this, but it should be said once again; those who underwrote risky loans ARE being punished as their companies go under and their professional credibility is shot.  Exactly why should we try to “add on” a punishment when the major one can be had for free?

ellinas - Yep. I agree with you. Those that made unsafe loans available should be held personaly responsible.

We conservatives call it letting the market work.

They’ll get punished. The market punishes bad behavior.

Compare that to the government - they want to REWARD bad behavior. (Then they sit around scratching their heads wondering why they get more of the behavior they’re rewarding. Not the brightest bunch, these government types.)

What do you want done?

I would STILL like to hear from “ellinas” exactly what constitutes an “unsafe loan” and why such a loan should be considered “unsafe”.

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a bad or “unsafe” loan at all.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a bad or “unsafe” loan at all.

Well,...banks used to recognize unsafe loans. They used to redline certain areas. If someone lived in a dysfunctional area, such as Detroit (good job there liberals!; those abandoned skyscrapers are so beautiful!), they wouldn’t be getting the loan.

You know what happened. Democrats in Congress, ever the type to look out for the “little” guy, declared the practice illegal. It was declared “racist”, when in reality the banks were looking to minimize risk to stupendously high risk areas. I mean, it’s not the banks’ fault that the Democrats have done such a swell job of destroying black neighborhoods.

The banks played the game that Congress wanted them to play. Now they’re the bad guys? Tell me another joke.

When assigning responsibility here, the ultimate question should be: why did those people borrow money they knew they couldn’t afford to pay back?  No one held a gun to their head and forced them to take out those loans.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

No one held a gun to their head and forced them to take out those loans.

But,...but,...but,...someone has to pay robert! Those *stutter* greedy people *stutter*stammer* should pay!

The sad thing is that so many buy into that populist bullshit rhetoric.

Personal responsibility is dying in this country. It’s always someone else’s fault. We’re becoming a nation of four year olds crying about how life’s not fair.

e,
Please explain exactly what you mean by the term “unsafe loan.” Which loans do you personally consider to be “unsafe”… and why?
Bat One on January 30, 2008 at 11:36 pm

When you apply for a loan your ability to pay back that loan is tacken (supposedly) into consideration.
If a loan officer, brocker,etc disregards that little part of the transaction and approves a loan, that loan is unsafe. Show me a law enacted by anyone that forces anyone to bypass that little detail, or put no money down pay interest only for a few years, then start paying like a regular customer.

Ellinas, take a look at Dr. Williams’ work.  The law that mandated, effectively, risky loans was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams012308.php3

So yes, government did have a hand in creating an environment where lenders were required to offer loans to those who simply weren’t credit-worthy.

It doesn’t excuse the examples of flat out fraud in loans—that baby ruth bar was put in the pool by the lenders and borrowers themselves, of course—but it does explain why a lot of loan products came out that aren’t as benign as the standard 30 year fixed rate.

Oh, and by the way; it was government intervention as well that gave us mortgage times longer than five or ten years, and doubled the cost of housing since WWII (among other factors).

Bike Bubba IMO that is a stretch. No one is forced or required to make a loan to a borrower who is unable to repay that loan.

Ellinas, you need to explain why the law was passed in the first place, then.  If there was already profit in those businesses, why did a law need to be passed to require banks to do this business?

Banks can and do, certainly, make dumb lending decisions from time to time.  However, it’s also true that government encourages this.  They did it in the 1920s to stimulate the stock market (in part causing the crash of 1929 and the Depression), they did it in the 1950s to create the 30 year mortgage (and a boom-bust cycle in real estate), and they did it in the 1970s to create ARMS and other subprime instruments.

e,

Let me suggest that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.  “No Income Verification” mortgage loans have been around for decades, and they serve a very useful function for those people whose income cannot be documented according to conventional underwriting guidelines. 

For example, many people who own their own business, me included, report substantially less income than what is available to them.  A $750 per month car payment costs my company $750 and is legitimately carried as an expense on company books.  If I was a normal W-2 employee however, I would need to make nearly twice that $750 per month in pre-tax income (federal and state income taxes, FICA, Workman’s Comp taxes, etc.) to be able to afford that same monthly payment.  So instead of paying myself a higher taxable income, I can have the company bear the pre-tax expense instead.  In essence, I’ve saved myself nearly the entire cost of the car payment.

Those who earn their living trading (stocks, bonds, commodities, options, etc), those who live off un-documentable trust, inheritance, or retirement income as well as those who earn their living on a commission-only basis, all have non-standard, difficult to verify income streams, and all would need some sort of “low doc”, or “no doc” mortgages.

Generally speaking, No Income Verification mortgage loans carry a higher credit history threshold, and a higher than conventional interest rate as well, since they are considered more risky to a lender or investor than a conventional mortgage.

However, to categorize such loans as “unsafe” is just so much uninformed drivel.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Show me a law enacted by anyone that forces anyone to bypass that little detail, or put no money down pay interest only for a few years, then start paying like a regular customer.

e,

Perhaps you have misspoken, but as written this comment implies that all financial transactions should conform to one federal law or another, and that only the government can dictate what can and cannot be bought, sold, invested or financed, and how.

Are you quite sure you want to be on record stating that the federal government should have sole and unlimited discretion regarding financial transactions in the private sector economy?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

If a loan officer, brocker,etc disregards that little part of the transaction and approves a loan, that loan is unsafe.

False. It’s a bad management decision.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

One must consider the racial politics of subprime lending.  USA Today presents some statistics, but their conclusion is grossly misleading:

A new study of the 331 U.S. metropolitan areas using 2003 federal data showed women were more likely to get subprime, rather than prime, loans in every one.

Subprime loans were more prevalent among blacks in 98.5% of the metropolitan areas, while Hispanics were more apt to hold a subprime mortgage or refinance loan in nearly 89.1%, according to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), a non-profit focused on lending and community- development issues.

Lower-income borrowers also turned to subprime lenders in large numbers, with prime lenders lagging the subprime industry in serving those with incomes 80% or less of their area median, in about 86% of cities studied. In neighborhoods with a concentration of low-income households, that rose to 98%.

Single women, low income borrowers, blacks and Hispanics.  There is your subprime market.  There is your payday loan market.  Ever notice that in the poorer (and often more black and Hispanic) neighborhoods, there are car dealerships that say “Compra Aqui Pague Aqui” and a payday loan center in every strip mall?  Are those same car places and loan stores in the affluent suburbs?  The subprime mortgage industry is no different than the payday loan industry or the hole in the wall car dealerships that sell 1991 Luminas to poor folk.

Democrats are consistently proposing legislation to limit payday loans.  It is wrong to charge that high of interest rate.  But ultimately, the folks that need these loans willingly pay the rates.  It sucks to be poor.  Lenders view you as a bad credit risk.  And by and large, it is far more difficult for blacks, Hispanics, women, and the poor to get home loans now.  There are no more lenders to make loans to these folks.

So punish the lenders.  We already have HUD subsidized guaranteed loans and many of these folks don’t even meet government lending guidelines.  Allow speculators and landlords with good credit to buy up all foreclosed homes that blacks and Hispanics and poor folks and women used to own, then rent them back to these same people at a profit.  Landlords can evict in 30 days.  It takes 6 months or more to foreclose.  The market will correct itself, and while there are almost no subprime lenders left and the loan officers are in new lines of work, the ultimate victims are the poor that can never afford or get a loan on their first home.

Justin,

Unless and until USA Today reporters and editors, or those of any of the other journalistic attempts to quantify mortgage lending along racial lines (including the Pulitzer Prize winning 1988 Atlanta Journal-Constitution piece, “The Color of Money”) addresses differences in the respective credit histories of those persons and neighborhoods surveyed, there is no validity to any of the conclusions drawn.

To examine the mortgage lending business on the basis of racial politics alone is meaningless, regardless of how politically attractive it may seem.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

BatOne, read Justin’s post carefully; he’s saying the same thing as you are, just with a touch of delightful sarcasm.

108, is a bad management decision at all “safe” for the bank’s stockholders and account owners?  There’s no inherent contradiction between bad loan decisions, bad management decisions, and loans that are “unsafe.” 

All in all, the key point to take home is that those who issued or accepted loans they should not have are paying dearly.  That’s the way it should be, and there isn’t much that government can or should do to “assist” the process.

To examine the mortgage lending business on the basis of racial politics alone is meaningless, regardless of how politically attractive it may seem.

I agree with that.  Simple fact is that an average composit of the credit histories, unemployment rate, education levels, income levels, and disposable income among different demographic groups accounts for the reason that subprime loans particullarly affect some groups more than others.  But most important, Subprime loans are clustered in bad neighborhoods where low income folks live. 

In affluent neighborhoods, we have a different problem.  We have upper middle class folks that bought too large of a home using stated income or ARMs or inflated appraisals or at higher than the standard LTV ratios.  We have the same problem with speculators using these same type of mortgages.  Nobody is crying a tear for the California speculator that bought 20 homes in a new Suburb in Dallas or Las Vegas or Phoenix, hoping to jack up the prices and make $1M.  Just “straight talk” about punishing the lenders. 

I am not going to play racial politics about the Subprime loan market disappearing.  The loss of the subprime market will leave older and poorer neighborhoods either vacant, filled with squatters, or bought up for next to nothing by slumlords.  Folks below the median income, need not even consider owning a home.  And rightly so.  I don’t think the Subprime market should have existed to begin with.

But one wonders what happens when Jesse Jackson and the Dems go on a Crusade against banks and mortgage companies for not lending to blacks, despite the fact that mortgage lending is by its nature colorblind, but most certainly isn’t blind to bad credit, low income, or lack of ability to pay.  The Subprime market made loans to these people and that market is gone now.  The cries of racism are coming.  That is all I am saying.  They are not justified, but they will be shrill and illogical, as most of Jackson and Sharpton’s rhetoric is.

Just “straight talk” about punishing the lenders.

So, defaulted loans aren’t enough “punishment”?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

BatOne, read Justin’s post carefully; he’s saying the same thing as you are, just with a touch of delightful sarcasm.

Exactly.  My point is that there are no lenders to punish.  They are gone.  Now, the only folks that are being punished are the major banks and their shareholders that actually have other businesses and didn’t just declare bk, shut down operations, and disappear.  I would say that punishment for folks that committed fraud needs to happen.  But the lending market has already corrected itself.  Ain’t gonna be no subprime loans anymore.  Not worht the risk.

All McCain is doing is pandering.  Come out and just effing say, “There are two Americas—one where people with jobs and decent credit and a down payment can get a home loan, and one where poor folks with low paying jobs and bad credit can’t.”  McCain needs to go all John Edwards on us.  Maybe if we raise the minimum wage to $9.50 and force lenders to give loans to people that cannot repay them, we can fix the “Two Americas” gap between the haves and the have nots.

This is why I hate McCain.  He isn’t quite as bad as Edwards’ one trick silk pony, but he isn’t all that different either.

BB,

I’m aware of Justin’s sarcasm.  But as long as I’ve been in the business, it seems like every liberal opportunist yammers about racial-based lending and not one has ever troubled themselves to examine or explain the disparity in credit histories when comparing the mortgage lending practices among various black and white neighborhoods and borrowers.

Yet it is exactly this sort of mindless ignorance and racially-based demagoguery with its attendant “everyone should own their own home” pandering that gets us into the difficulties we currently face.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

108, is a bad management decision at all “safe” for the bank’s stockholders and account owners?

Of course not, and bad management usually results in job loss, doesn’t it?  No, the use of the term “unsafe loans” is simply anti-business rhetoric.  The reality is, no loan is “safe”, otherwise there would be no interest charged; there is only a spectrum of risk, which is why some borrowers pay lower or higher interest rates than others.  All loans are risky, by definition.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Justin,

If my rant came across as being needlessly directed at you, I apologize.  I’m well aware that, unlike some of our other, less well-informed commenters here, you know better.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I think we are saying the exact same thing:

it seems like every liberal opportunist yammers about racial-based lending and not one has ever troubled themselves to examine or explain the disparity in credit histories when comparing the mortgage lending practices among various black and white neighborhoods and borrowers.

But one wonders what happens when Jesse Jackson and the Dems go on a Crusade against banks and mortgage companies for not lending to blacks, despite the fact that mortgage lending is by its nature colorblind, but most certainly isn’t blind to bad credit, low income, or lack of ability to pay.

Mortgage lending isn’t racist at all, especially because with many companies now, they never even meet you face to face.  You submit your app over the internet, they pull your credit.  You fedex in paycheck stubs and taxes.  You go to a title company and fill out docs.  I have not even met my last three mortgage officers.  I guess they do actually make sure you have a drivers license per the Patriot Act, but loan officers care solely about their paycheck, not about the color of your skin.

Maybe 40 years ago, Senator Byrd might have told his followers not to lend to blacks at one of his KKK rallies, but those days are long gone.  The internet has done wonders to level the playing field.  We are increasingly a virtual society.  I have met my boss exactly one time and have worked for him for almost three years.  He judges me based on my work performance, not on my race or gender.

How about we punish those in the Senate that voted to force loan companies to make loans to nearly anybody.

We should hold them personally responsible for the losses they caused.

The Whistler on January 31, 2008 at 07:30 am

Agreed. Name names, and show me a law enacted by anyone that forces anyone to bypass that little detail (ability to repay), or put no money down pay interest only for a few years, then start paying like a regular customer.
Plus I wonder what happened to that other little detail: Mortgage Insurance.

Name names, and show me a law enacted by anyone that forces anyone to bypass that little detail (ability to repay), or put no money down pay
interest only for a few years, then start paying like a regular customer.

After you trim away all the leftie talking points, it was the responsibility of the borrowers to refuse to sign a contract they couldn’t fulfill.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

After you trim away all the leftie talking points, it was the responsibility of the borrowers to refuse to sign a contract they couldn’t fulfill.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.
robert108 on February 2, 2008 at 12:23 am

Wrong again Robert108.
Now read my take on the subject:After you trim away all the leftie and rightie talking points, it is the responsibility of the lenders and borrowers to refuse to sign a contract that cannot be fulfilled.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.

How about we punish those in the Senate that voted to force loan companies to make loans to nearly anybody.

We should hold them personally responsible for the losses they caused.

The Whistler on January 31, 2008 at 07:30 am

Agreed. Name names, and show me a law enacted by anyone that forces anyone to bypass that little detail (ability to repay), or put no money down pay interest only for a few years, then start paying like a regular customer.
Plus I wonder what happened to that other little detail: Mortgage Insurance.

Still awaiting answers to the above.

it is the responsibility of the lenders and
borrowers

Wrong.  Nobody knocks on your door and offers you a loan to buy a house; you have to go in and ask for it, after a time of house shopping, etc.  It’s the responsibility of the borrower, no matter how ignorantly you try to spin it.  The borrowers are trying to buy something they can’t afford, and they know it.  Caveat emptor.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

The borrowers are trying to buy something they can’t afford, and they know it.  .

robert108 on February 2, 2008 at 08:26 am

After you trim away all the leftie and rightie talking points, it is the responsibility of the lenders and borrowers to refuse to sign a contract that cannot be fulfilled.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.

...show me a law enacted by anyone that forces anyone to bypass that little detail (ability to repay), or put no money down pay interest only for a few years, then start paying like a regular customer.

e,

It just a modest suggestion, but don’t you think you should maybe restrict your comments to those subjects
where you can demonstrate some small working knowledge?  Obviously, mortgage lending in general and underwriting in particular are not your area of expertise.  If you are determined to be contentious, find a subject of which you know enough to contend.

Point in fact would be this statement:

Plus I wonder what happened to that other little detail: Mortgage Insurance.

At the retail level, there is no mortgage insurance on most non-conforming or so-called “sub-prime” mortgage loans, which is part of the reason the interest rates on such loans is higher than that of conventional conforming or government “agency” loans.

There is a great deal of concern about companies such as Ambac, MBIA, and others who not only have some MI exposure at the retail level, but are also at risk for various underwriting guarantees issued in connection with the mortgage-based CDOs and other securities issued.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

e: Let me ‘splain something to you: it is the duty of a person to not claim to be able to pay for something they know they can’t pay for.  To do otherwise is to practice fraud.  No matter how you try to spin it, this is the basic truth of transaction.
In the same way, in trying to make businesses responsible for hiring invaders, you ignore the more basic fact that the border enforcement didn’t do its job.  The invaders shouldn’t be here, and the people who can’t afford a home loan shouldn’t be in that loan office.
An invader applying for a job is attempting to defraud the employer, and a person applying for a home loan he knows he can’t afford is attempting to defraud the lender.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

ellinas - Agreed. Name names, and show me a law enacted by anyone that forces anyone to bypass that little detail (ability to repay)...

You’ll ignore it because it’s too much truth for you, but here you go: The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

It forces banks to ignore that little detail you mention.

It’s what I was referring to in my comment above.

You’ll ignore it because it’s too much truth for you, but here you go: The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. It forces banks to ignore that little detail you mention.
It’s what I was referring to in my comment above.
likwidshoe on February 2, 2008 at 09:39 am

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977came to roost in 2007?
Damn that is a long stretch. A thirty year stretch.
Wow. What a stretch of the imagination.

While I am not saying that the borrowers a innocent victims once again I will reiterate my position: it is the responsibility of the lenders and borrowers to refuse to sign a contract that cannot be fulfilled.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977came to roost in 2007?
Damn that is a long stretch. A thirty year stretch.
Wow. What a stretch of the imagination.

No, that’s not what was said at all.

No wonder so you don’t understand so much. You’re illiterate.

e: You asked for the legislation, and it was shown to you; so now you try to change the subject.  Actually, this situation has been building for a long time; you just became aware of it when it became a news item for use in bashing the President.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

In the same way, in trying to make businesses responsible for hiring invaders, you ignore the more basic fact that the border enforcement didn’t do its job.
robert108 on February 2, 2008 at 09:29 am

Employer sanctions work. For proof see what is happening in Arizona.Illegals fleeing ArizonaMigrants fleeing

No, that’s not what was said at all.

No wonder so you don’t understand so much. You’re illiterate.

likwidshoe on February 2, 2008 at 10:01 am

What was said then?

e: You asked for the legislation, and it was shown to you; so now you try to change the subject.

I am still on the subject. If you are dizzy from all the spinning you do I suggest the same remedy I suggested for likwidshoe: Take a big breath. If that does not help talk a walk or a nap. You will feel better afterwards.

You’re the only one spinning here; the rest of us are telling the truth.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Employer sanctions work.

It would also “work” to execute all invaders, but that doesn’t mean it would be right to do so.

In fact, if law enforcement did its job, not employer “sanctions” would be necessary, and all the evils of having millions of invaders in our country wouldn’t exist.  Is that too simple a concept for you?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

(I)t is the responsibility of the lenders and borrowers to refuse to sign a contract that cannot be fulfilled.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.

Fraud???  Where’s the fraud, e?  Who committed fraud here and what, specifically, did that fraud consist of?

In most states, mortgage companies and mortgage brokers are licensed by the state.  In many states, individual loan officers must also be licensed.  In addition to various state regulations, federal law regarding mortgages is voluminous and excruciatingly detailed.  Most states, and most certainly the federal government, as per RESPA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, require that the terms of any mortgage loan must be explained to the borrower, including specifically any changes in the rate of interest charged, how those changes are determined, the index and margin over that index that are used to determine the rate to be paid, the frequency of any such changes, and any penalties incurred for late or missed payments, along with examples of such changes, and the contact information for both the company originating the mortgage loan and the federal agencies with oversight responsibility, such as HUD, FTC, etc.  These disclosures are signed at the time of application by the borrower and co-borrower(s) indicating that they have been so advised and that they understand the terms of the loan offered, and again at the closing of the transaction, and every mortgage company, and every closing attorney or closing agent maintains copies of each individual loan file, for later review and audit by the various enforcement authorities, as well as the insurance carriers who underwrite the title insurance issued by the closing attorney/closing agent, along with the company which guarantees the closer’s escrow account.

So… once again, e, where’s the fraud?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

ellinas - What was said then?

I’ll hold your hand.

You asked to be shown “a law enacted by anyone that forces anyone to bypass that little detail (ability to repay).”

I tell you The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

Your question was answered.

You then spun the situation around, fulfilling my prediction of ignoring it because it’s too much truth for you.

ellinas, take a big breath. If that does not help talk a walk or a nap. You will feel better afterwards. Then come back with a hopefully clearer head and just maybe you’ll see what happened here.

In the same way, in trying to make businesses responsible for hiring invaders, you ignore the more basic fact that the border enforcement didn’t do its job.
robert108 on February 2, 2008 at 09:29 am

Employer sanctions work. For proof see what is happening in Arizona.Illegals fleeing ArizonaMigrants fleeing

No.  Illegals that are honest, working folks are fleeing.  Illegals that run drugs and gangs and sex slavery and prostitution are staying right where they are.  Illegals that rape and murder aren’t leaving. 

Employer Sanctions are effective, much the same way that gauze and bandages are effective to treat a stabbing victim.  What is more effective is to keep the criminal from stabbing somebody in the first place.  You make the argument that we need more gauze.  I make the argument we need fewer stabbings.  My argument does not negate the validity that employer sanctions are helping, but border enforcement is the only “solution”.  Some illegals will self deport.  Some will move elsewhere.  But we still have criminals and identity theft and the other problems that come with the number of illegals in the US.  If you think the answer is to just target the hard working illegals that clean hotel rooms and do gardening, while ignoring the violent criminals that run gangs and deal drugs, and that simply deporting working folks will fix the problem, you need to check to see if your mom was smoking crack while she was pregnant with you.

And honestly, it is the same with the subprime market.  The start of it was bad lending practices.  They shouldn’t have lent money on homes in the inner city.  Or to folks that didn’t have sufficient credit or incomes to make the payments. 

That problem is fixed.  There are no subprime lenders left.  Now there is another problem—lots of folks defaulting on subprime mortgages.  McCain favors “straight talk” directed towards those evil lenders that don’t exist anymore which is simply pandering to the masses.  He favors major government bailouts, freezing interest rates, and subsidizing poor people so that they can stay in places they cannot afford. 

The market needs to correct itself and that process is going to be extremely painful while inner cities and poor neighborhoods are filled with vacant defaulted properties.  But these owners will file BK, move into apartments, and figure shit out.  And that is what they need to do.  The lenders will take it in the ass and some of them will file BK while others will be saddled with major writedowns of assets and huge losses.  And that is what should happen.  They both were willing parties to bad transactions. 

And this process will correct itself amazingly quickly.  I would be inclined to favor revision of the bankruptcy laws that passed several years ago to make it easier to file Chapter 7 for these folks and get a fresh start.  I know that screws lenders somewhat, but bad debt is bad debt and it washes the problem away sooner.  Instead, we are going to dump tax dollars into what amounts to as bad of an investment of my tax dollars as it was of an investment of mortgage lenders’ money in the first place.  And why?  Because it is populist to give free money away to poor folks.

Illegals that run drugs and gangs and sex slavery and prostitution are staying right where they are.  Illegals that rape and murder aren’t leaving.
Justin B. on February 2, 2008 at 04:21 pm

Then Justin I say we arrest the criminalsand give them to sheriff J. Arpaio for proper housing in his tent city

Then Justin I say we arrest the criminalsand give them to sheriff J. Arpaio for proper housing in his tent city

Wow.  That is a great idea.  Give illegals food and housing in our jails at a cost to Maricopa taxpayers.  Let me think about how and why you feel that way…  perhaps it is because if we deport them, they will be back next week because they can sneak through our pourous border.

How about we secure our border so that deportation is an option for us, not a joke to them?

Justin B. If you do not want to burden the Maricopa taxpayers than may I suggest feeding the great white sharks that roam off the coast of California?

I have no affinity for either good or bad illegals.

ellinas, take a big breath. If that does not help talk a walk or a nap. You will feel better afterwards. Then come back with a hopefully clearer head and just maybe you’ll see what happened here.

likwidshoe I took your (my) advise took a nap woke up refreshed and my head is clearer.
It is with great saddnes that I must concede that the The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 may have played some role in the subprime market. But I can not and will not concede that it takes two to tango.
I also find it preposterous that the financial players knew that doomsday was approaching and did nothing to prevent it. In short I never advocated bailing out anyone. Not the “homeowners” that lost or are going to lose their homes nor those making what IMO were essentialy “unsafe loans”.
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 does not force anyone into making loans available to people that are not creditworthy.Therefore I still believe that it is the responsibility of the lenders and borrowers to refuse to sign a contract that cannot be fulfilled.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract. Let the chips fall where they may fall.

Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.

No one forced those borrowers to ask for a loan they knew they couldn’t repay.  You assume they were honest about their financial condition, but you simply don’t know that.  Without the borrowers, there would be no subprime loans, and there would be no credit crisis right now.  First cause.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

No one forced those borrowers to ask for a loan they knew they couldn’t repay. 
robert108 on February 3, 2008 at 12:36 am

I never said such a stupid thing.
Why are you even mentioning such a stupid thing?

This is my position in the matter: I don’t advocate bailing out anyone. Not the “homeowners” that lost or are going to lose their homes nor those making what IMO were essentialy “unsafe loans”.

Ellinas:

I don’t advocate bailing out anyone. Not the “homeowners” that lost or are going to lose their homes nor those making what IMO were essentialy “unsafe loans”.

While I agree with that philosophically, when the problem gets this big, isn’t it likely that others will suffer financial loss that were not directly involved, like investors through retirement funds or other cases and thus hurt the economy, so that some corrective steps might be in our best long term interests? I have very little knowledge of economics, but I am just curious if sometimes a bailout of some kind may not be necessary?

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

In short I never advocated bailing out anyone. Not the “homeowners” that lost or are going to lose their homes nor those making what IMO were essentialy “unsafe loans”.

McCain talked about punishing the people responsible and you have been advocating for McCain.  I think it interesting that your impression is drastically different from McCain’s rhetoric.  And you support him again because…

While I agree with that philosophically, when the problem gets this big, isn’t it likely that others will suffer financial loss that were not directly involved, like investors through retirement funds or other cases and thus hurt the economy, so that some corrective steps might be in our best long term interests?

Neiman,

The situation now is a corrective step.  While some are losing money left and right now, others got very wealthy off of the REITS and flipping homes and speculating.  That is what drove home prices up.

This is akin to a whole bunch of buyers getting into the stock market and driving prices through the roof, so that everyone thinks they are the star of Mad Money.  Everyone is gonna be filthy rich on stocks.  Then one day, folks start realizing that the PE ratios are way out of whack and projections do not support the prices people are paying.  The smart investors sell their stocks first, then panic sets in and the market drops and corrects.  Some people get rich from buying and selling at the right time and others lose their asses by hitting the market at the wrong time.  Net is that if you want to play the stock market, just like if you want to bet on the Superbowl, there will be winners and losers.  You pick the trend of the market that you want to speculate on.  And there will be some lemmings that gamble and lose.

We lose sight of the fact that homes are not some kind of IRA.  They are an asset just like a stock or a bond or a business.  The appreciate and depreciate.  They differ because people can leverage themselves into bad positions that otherwise couldn’t leverage themselves the same way in the stock market and because you also depend on your house for home equity loans and as a place to live.  In 2001-2003, the S&P500 dropped by almost 50%.  The NASDAQ dropped 75%.  Some folks got rich shorting the market.  Others lost their retirement over it.  This housing correction after the market appreciated almost 100% in four years is just part of the business cycle.  Unfortunately, folks borrowed money at 100% LTV in many cases and stand to lose substantially SHORT TERM. 

The government has no business bailing out Pensions or 401k investors or stock owners or failing companies that lay employees off or subprime lenders or subprime homeowners or anyone else.  All it does is inject tax dollars directly into the pockets of the smart real estate investors that are getting wealthy off of the entire up and down swing.  I am sorry that some folks are winners and some are losers on their homes.

Oh, and one more thing:

McCain wants to punish drug companies and oil companies for their excessive profits.  He wants to punish subprime lenders and bail out the little man.

This is socialism at its worst.  It insulates people from the consequences of their actions and assigns blame to those that are successful.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

I never said such a stupid thing.
Why are you even mentioning such a stupid thing?

Because you keep insisting that the lenders defrauded the borrowers, which is patently untrue in general.  Any lender who didn’t give full disclosure is certainly guilty of fraud, but why would they make a loan they knew wouldn’t be repaid?  They can only lose, whereas the borrower who misleads the lender and who signs a disclosure agreement, knowing that he can’t repay it, is certainly guilty of fraud.
It’s not an equal situation.  The borrower gets a house and a bailout, and the lender gets the bad paper.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

It’s not an equal situation.  The borrower gets a house and a bailout, and the lender gets the bad paper.
robert108 on February 3, 2008 at 11:18 am

The lenders IMO have allredy received their bailout in the form of lower interest rates through the fed.
Another thing. Notice how quickly Bank of America stepped in to buy Countrywide?

No. I don’t keep insisting that all lenders defrauded all borrowers. But there was certainly a lot of wink wink going on.I did say it takes too to tango.

Neiman I am not an economist either but i have to concede to what you say. This thing has the potential to financially harm untold numbers of people. And at the end those that can least afford it, will suffer the most.

And at the end those that can least afford it, will suffer the most.

Because they bought something they couldn’t afford.  Who’s responsible for that?  Being poor is no excuse for irresponsible behavior, especially when that affects others who don’t get any benefit at all.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Justin I am just going to ignore you because it is the just thing to do.

Notice how quickly Bank of America stepped in to buy Countrywide?

Being forced to sell your business isn’t so great.  It’s a sign of failure.

The lenders IMO have allredy received their bailout in the form of lower interest rates through the fed.

That’s not a bailout, it simply lessens the damage.

But there was certainly a lot of wink wink going on.  Any facts to substantiate that? I did say it takes too to tango.  As has already been pointed out to you, the lender is under law required to give full disclosure; the borrower isn’t.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Ellinas:

I wish Whistler or Bat One would get in on this thread, I respect their views on such matters. I am sure others can also offer great insights. My only concern is: How do we make people and corporations face responsibility for their own destructive acts in this matter and not screw over our national economy at the same time.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Because they bought something they couldn’t afford.  Who’s responsible for that? 
robert108 on February 3, 2008 at 12:11 pm

The dumb ass lenders that lend them the money.
If you come to me asking for a loan, and Swartzenneger encourages me to give you a loan because of whatever reasons, and I do so without checking you creditworthiness it is my fault.
When things go wrong Swartzenneger will claim that he only encouraged me to take a second look at you and not drop any sound buissiness practices.
So I will do the Prudent thing. Check your application and supporting documents then summon you and ask either for clarification and more supporing documents or kindly give you the bad news. And if Swartzenneger disagrees with my decision I will invite him and the unqualified buyer and patiently explain as to why I cannot lend you the money you have asked for.
Then when no one is watching I will whisper to Swartzenneger: SOB go fuck yourself. You lend him the money if you want to.
And since no one heard me say that, if Swartzenneger was to ever bring it up I would deny it and call him a lier.

(I)t is the responsibility of the lenders and borrowers to refuse to sign a contract that cannot be fulfilled.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.

Fraud???  Where’s the fraud, e?  Who committed fraud here and what, specifically, did that fraud consist of?

In most states, mortgage companies and mortgage brokers are licensed by the state.  In many states, individual loan officers must also be licensed.  In addition to various state regulations, federal law regarding mortgages is voluminous and excruciatingly detailed.  Most states, and most certainly the federal government, as per RESPA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, require that the terms of any mortgage loan must be explained to the borrower, including specifically any changes in the rate of interest charged, how those changes are determined, the index and margin over that index that are used to determine the rate to be paid, the frequency of any such changes, and any penalties incurred for late or missed payments, along with examples of such changes, and the contact information for both the company originating the mortgage loan and the federal agencies with oversight responsibility, such as HUD, FTC, etc.  These disclosures are signed at the time of application by the borrower and co-borrower(s) indicating that they have been so advised and that they understand the terms of the loan offered, and again at the closing of the transaction, and every mortgage company, and every closing attorney or closing agent maintains copies of each individual loan file, for later review and audit by the various enforcement authorities, as well as the insurance carriers who underwrite the title insurance issued by the closing attorney/closing agent, along with the company which guarantees the closer’s escrow account.

So… once again, e, where’s the fraud?

“If you think Education is difficult, try being stupid.”

...Anna

Bat One on February 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

The dumb ass lenders that lend them the money.

Nope.  No lenders would be involved if the people didn’t try to buy something they couldn’t afford.  Cause, then effect.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

But there was certainly a lot of wink wink going on.  Any facts to substantiate that? I did say it takes too to tango.  As has already been pointed out to you, the lender is under law required to give full disclosure; the borrower isn’t.

robert108 on February 3, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Yes my neighbour. And I will point out to you ,that as you say the borrower is not required by law to give full disclosure, he is required to give truthfull disclosure.

(I)t is the responsibility of the lenders and borrowers to refuse to sign a contract that cannot be fulfilled.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.

Fraud???  Where’s the fraud, e?  Who committed fraud here and what, specifically, did that fraud consist of?

In most states, mortgage companies…..........which guarantees the closer’s escrow account.

So… once again, e, where’s the fraud?

“If you think Education is difficult, try being stupid.”
...Anna
Bat One on February 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm
robert108 on February 3, 2008 at 12:32 pm

All that is nice and dandy.
There are also laws that prohibit stealing, drunk driving, polygamy, murder, drugs, and a host of other things.
Notice how our prisons are bursting at their seams.
Nothing stops people from commiting crimes.

...he is required to give truthfull disclosure.

And if he doesn’t, the lender gets screwed and the deceitful borrower gets bailed out.  Where’s the justice?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Justin I am just going to ignore you because it is the just thing to do.

I am not sure I understand that logic, but sure.  You were the one that showed up here and stated:

Yep. I agree with you. Those that made unsafe loans available should be held personaly responsible.

Funny, but now we come full circle and you state:

In short I never advocated bailing out anyone. Not the “homeowners” that lost or are going to lose their homes nor those making what IMO were essentialy “unsafe loans”.

You want the lenders “punished”, yet don’t want bailouts for borrowers.

What exactly is your position on this again?

Justin I am just going to ignore you because it is the just thing to do.

What exactly is your position on this again?
Justin B. on February 3, 2008 at 02:58 pm

This is what I have said:

Yep. I agree with you. Those that made unsafe loans available should be held personaly responsible.

ellinas on January 30, 2008 at 11:25 pm

And this:

it is the responsibility of the lenders and borrowers to refuse to sign a contract that cannot be fulfilled.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract

.

And this:

While I am not saying that the borrowers a innocent victims once again I will reiterate my position: it is the responsibility of the lenders and borrowers to refuse to sign a contract that cannot be fulfilled.  Nobody forced anyone to commit fraud in signing a contract.

And this:

In short I never advocated bailing out anyone. Not the “homeowners” that lost or are going to lose their homes nor those making what IMO were essentialy “unsafe loans”.

Do you understand my position now or should I go on.

And finaly I will say it in the simplest terms:
I don’t give a flying fuck about Clinton,Roberts, Obama, McCain, Thompson, Romney or any other politician says. To me these bastards lie the second they open their mouth. None of them speak for me.
So if you want to talk to me, talk to me.
Do not burden me with what a politician said.
Got that kiddo?